Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You also appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about > Reply-To, and since it's been pointed out to you repeatedly and > you haven't even acknowledged it, I can only conclude that you > are trolling.
The same could be said of you. Reply-To may contain >1 address, so is suitable for indicating a cc is desired or not desired on a reply to a list message. However, your arbitrary distinction of the usenet term "followup" having some special significance for email is part of the reason why Reply-To doesn't work quite right in this scenario. Anyway, you are also ignoring my advice to add the request to your signature, but your sig is already looking like a candidate for the alt.fan.warlord FAQ anyway.
